Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Trelane: No, not in Starfleet, not interested in terror.
Colonel Green: Possible, they'd have to play with the timeline a bit by our reckoning but it hardly matters in the new reality.
Khan: Wasn't a terrorist, wasn't a one man weapon of mass destruction, wasn't in Starfleet....nope, definitely not Khan.
Garth: Has the ability and power to destroy Starfleet from within, he may have gained some power after becoming a megalomaniac.
Gary Mitchell: In Starfleet. Wanted to create worlds in his own image. Gained god-like power. May have a vendetta against Starfleet/Kirk for trying to stop him. Mentioned by an insider as one of the names that might be in the movie.
Ben Finney: Sabotaged a starship for revenge. In Starfleet, no special powers.

1) people won't enjoy when films like Titanic, Life of Pi, The King's Speech, Lincoln, and many others do so well and are clearly made and

That's not much of an argument. The King's Speech and Lincoln were in limited release in theatres (showing on less screens than an average movie) so there's a lower bar for them to be considered a success, and The Life of Pi came in fifth place on opening weekend. Titanic is the only true success out of that lot. And that was James Cameron, people flock theatres to see his movies.

Although I make derisive comments about "dumb action flicks" if I'm honest I have to admit to enjoying them more than movies like 2001, which I found to be nothing more than a two hour screen saver.

We're not stupid. We're not troglodytes. We're not savages compared to the moviegoers of the past. We still make good shit.

Take a look at all the box office number ones from the last decade. They have usually been:

-Big ass action movies.
-Family-aimed cartoons.

That's where studios see the money, and in a world where studios are more considered with making a quick dollar than taking risks on anything new, that's what's going to continue to get the go ahead. Artsy movies will be sidelined as a niche thing unless you're James Cameron and can persuade billions to go to a theatre to look at a blank blue screen for three hours through name recognition alone.

I'm perfectly content with the Director's Cut. It's not going to get any better than it already is, logistically speaking. It's a film that is a product of the times, and even if it's not perfect, it holds a special place in the hearts of many trekkies that saw it as their first Trek film ever. It's got some fine performances, has some wonderful character scenes between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and it would just be strange to see a remake. Perfect or not, it deserves to be left alone.

What if we add a prologue? Take that five-minute overture and show the origins of V'Ger. That'd be a great way to spoil the revelation at the end of the flick, right? Never mind. I'm off my meds.

And for what it's worth, I agree that Trek works better on TV. That's the medium for it, not film. Paramount got greedy thanks to the success of Star Wars and I often imagine what the franchise would be like if the films had been television episodes instead.

I saw someone mention that the 9 minute excerpt from ST:ID would basically summarize the Mitchell story in the comic book, from WNMHGB and the story would extend from there, with his "un-dead" body still floating in space in the opening.

It sounds like JJ is going to ruin Star Trek even more. Let's just blow everything up. What happened to exploration, diplomacy, etc?

Just keep Trek off of the big screen and keep it on TV, where it belongs.

\
Um yeah, there were no explosions, bad guys, etc in the first 10 movies...

If I recall there was an attempt at diplomacy several times by Starfleet in the first JJ movie, and Starfleet was a fleet of exploration. It also happened to be an origin movie, but we still got to see more interesting planets, creatures, sights than in any of the other movies combined.

It sounds like JJ is going to ruin Star Trek even more. Let's just blow everything up. What happened to exploration, diplomacy, etc?

It's hard to ruin something that was already ruined by a tapped out creative staff. But exploration and diplomacy aren't really the best stories for movies unless you have got the right scenario that can provide the kind of action and drama needed to drive and sustain the major motion picture, especially in this market.

I did single out JJ, mostly because IMO the movie was about explosions, inaccurate technicalities, disregard for lore (yes, I know it's an alternate reality), etc. The other movies were not that good compared to the TV series as well. I know my view isn't a popular one, but I prefer a more intelligent take vs a young, cocky and horny crew with more action and very little intelligence. I felt that the movie had a thin veil of Star Trek over a generic space action movie.

Take a look at all the box office number ones from the last decade. They have usually been:

-Big ass action movies.
-Family-aimed cartoons.

That's where studios see the money, and in a world where studios are more considered with making a quick dollar than taking risks on anything new, that's what's going to continue to get the go ahead. Artsy movies will be sidelined as a niche thing unless you're James Cameron and can persuade billions to go to a theatre to look at a blank blue screen for three hours through name recognition alone.

That's a very cynical view. But what I'm saying is that the audience is there for "artsy" movies, especially sci-fi which are very visual. Besides, how difficult was TMP to follow? Wasn't very complicated.

__________________
"Stop going on and on about your diet.. Just eat your salad and be sad."